Talk:Battle of Wolf 359
FA status Nomination Together with the list of ships at Wolf 359, this article gives all canon-info along with good illustrations. The article was created with the help of various people. --BlueMars 18:53, Jun 26, 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. -- Redge 19:33, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Approve. (I did some major rewriting on this article a while back.) -- Dan Carlson 20:27, 26 Jun 2004 (CEST) * Seconded. It's pretty good. Ottens 21:54, 27 Jun 2004 (CEST) *Seconded. --BlueMars 00:33, Jun 28, 2004 (CEST) *Definitely support -- Michael Warren Reconfirmation FA from 2004, haven't read it yet, so I'm not sure if it's still up to snuff. - 21:03, June 8, 2012 (UTC) * Hold--For the moment (and I DO want this to be featured), I'm missing some info relating to the events leading up to this event (from in respect to the "Prelude section") and on a very personal note, while it has been split off in the past, I personally would like to see the reintegration of Starships at Wolf 359 into the article--Sennim 21:23, June 8, 2012 (UTC) That merge should then be suggested as soon as possible, and this can remain on hold until it is resolved. Just an FYI for everyone though, the order I've been using for bringing these up for reconfirmation is the nomination archive (since the list here is still dictated by when the category was added when it was created), so everyone can check the articles likely to be reconfirmed next. - 22:27, June 8, 2012 (UTC) :Well, I've opened that debate--Sennim 03:09, June 9, 2012 (UTC) :Have addressed IMO the "Neutral zone" notion--Sennim 20:15, June 15, 2012 (UTC) With the merge and discussion now complete, this can continue. - 03:57, June 21, 2012 (UTC) :Agreed, struck the hold note; have in the meantime elaborated on the BG-section--Sennim 09:50, June 22, 2012 (UTC) :I've tried my hand at writing a blurb, but I'm the first to admit that in-universe writing is not my strong suit, so if this is not up to specs, I apologize and by all means, edit it into smithereens--Sennim 10:46, June 22, 2012 (UTC) I did some work on the blurb to try and trim it down a bit, as it was a little long. This one was much harder to summarize than I expected, so good work Sennim. As for the article, I think the "Aftermath" part is lacking some detail, and the legacy part doesn't mention the sidelining of the Enterprise-E during the next Borg incursion. I'll get to those over the next few days if no one else does. - 19:58, June 22, 2012 (UTC) :I like your more tersely reworded blurb...and I'm close to casting a (positive) vote...And btw. I'm not sure if the ''-E's sidelining is pertinent to this article, I thought that was pertinent to , aka the Battle of Sector 001--Sennim 20:41, June 22, 2012 (UTC) ::There's been some good effort put into the "Background information" section. But with respect, the first paragraph has nothing to do with the subject of the article. The Battle of Wolf 359 isn't even mentioned. The info is more relevant to e.g. , and Borg, which have similar notes already.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:00, June 23, 2012 (UTC) ::I removed the paragraph. I'll archive it here: :: to be the first part in a trilogy that would introduce an entirely new threat to the Federation, introducing a plot point that Federation and Romulan starbases along the Romulan Neutral Zone had been mysteriously wiped out. This was intended to lead into a series of episodes that would have introduced the Borg as a main villain in the wake of the Ferengi's complete failure to meet with audience expectations of a major Starfleet antagonist. Unfortunately, the Writer's Guild strike of 1988 prevented this, as well as many other concepts, from coming to fruition in TNG's early days. By the time they made their first appearance in "Q Who", the villain species had been changed from insect to the more budget-friendly cyborg form. (Captains' Logs: The Unauthorized Complete Trek Voyages, pp. 169, 180) Hurley finally got to proceed with his planned sequel with "Q Who", although only one passing reference was made of the strange destruction of outposts referred to in "The Neutral Zone" by Data, "''It is identical to what happened to the outposts along the Neutral Zone." . Not everyone picked up on the reference, partly due to the absence of the Romulans from the storyline, but they are mentioned when Q says, "You judge yourselves against the pitiful adversaries you have so far encountered -- the Klingons, the Romulans, are nothing compared to what's waiting." }} ::–Cleanse ( talk | ) 04:41, June 24, 2012 (UTC) :While I'm not entirely convinced for the need of the removal of the paragraph by Cleanse, as I feel that it served as a explanation of the introductory paragraph of the article, I also do not consider it an insurmountable issue, so let me kick this one off, as I'm satisfied: *'Support'--Sennim (talk) 12:55, June 26, 2012 (UTC) *I'll choose to oppose this article. I recently made quite a big effort to improve the page as have others, and it still needs work! I, for one, agree with the afore-discussed removal; it's pretty irrelevant. However, a short bginfo statement could be made that links the finding in "The Neutral Zone" to the Borg, explaining the relevance of this in-universe info. The article could be further improved in several different ways. The sentence, "While investigating a planet within that system, scans, performed by the crew of the Enterprise, revealed evidence of a previous advanced civilization on the planet, but also massive surface scarring notably similar to that detected on several Federation and Romulan outposts along the Romulan Neutral Zone in 2364, which had removed all machine elements on the planet, suggesting a previous Borg incursion in the Alpha Quadrant" ... should be trimmed. The citations around this area of the article are also unclear, as "The Neutral Zone" and "Q Who" are absurdly given for all the above text! Quite a few of the images are messily arranged, and some more clarification should be given in the short paragraph that has in-universe info from . At least at this point, the article is certainly not what I would call an example of the community's best work. --Defiant (talk) 16:56, June 27, 2012 (UTC) ::A short note in a bginfo template after "The Neutral Zone" info would be okay. What wording did you have in mind?Cleanse ( talk | ) 23:44, June 27, 2012 (UTC) :::Maybe something like "these attacks were intended to have been committed by an insectoid species which, during the production of TNG, were revised to become the Borg" or "... an insectoid species that were, in reality, the conceptual progenitors of the Borg." Something like that, possibly.... --Defiant (talk) 01:13, June 28, 2012 (UTC) :Did some tweaking on the "trimmable sentence", as well as addressing citations and some pic layout work. "Second Sight" citation does not need more clarification IMO, as Sisko is mentioned two paragraphs earlier as a survivor,--Sennim (talk) 12:05, June 28, 2012 (UTC) :::Well, how exactly did he "miss" the anniversary?! Was he doing something else at the time, for example, and intentionally didn't commemorate it, or did he simply forget (etc)? The details are currently too few to be clear. --Defiant (talk) 23:36, June 28, 2012 (UTC) :Problem is none will be forthcoming. Sisko merely mentions it in his log at the beginning of the episode,"Personal Log, Stardate 47329.4. I finally realize why I've had trouble sleeping the last few nights. Yesterday was the fourth anniversary of the massacre at Wolf three five nine... the fourth anniversary of Jennifer's death." . Besides, the original author misinterpreted it, having cause and effect mixed up, so I have made adjustments to the text.--Sennim (talk) 01:37, June 29, 2012 (UTC) :::As have I, attempting to make it as clear as possible. --Defiant (talk) 09:59, June 29, 2012 (UTC) :I've reconsidered Duke's comment about the E's sidelining and came to the conclusion it had pertinence to the "Legacy"-section, so I've written it in--Sennim (talk) 16:31, June 29, 2012 (UTC) :Dear Defiant, while I applaud your (re-)edits of my edits (I particulary like your subtle solution of adding a BG-template concerning the Neutral Zone et al. info) I have reservations about the following: :-Pics: Your removal of two pics is in my view only partially justifiable. The early destruction of the Melbourne is specifically mentioned, so I took the liberty to reinsert the pic, as it is pertinent to the article as written. Your argument of it being it "more related to the actual battle than to any singular vessel" is invalid IMHO. Every single historical work, embellished with pictorial imagery, I've read since WW II (and I've did read quite a few), showed pictorial references of individual participants of said battles, so in my view your position is untenable. :-The paragraph about the break-away models of the cube: You removed that, yet I feel it is pertinent to the article as it is a bonafide BG part of the "aftermath" section of the article, made even more pertinent perchance due to the fact that the producers decided to concentrate on showing that, instead of showing the battle :-The "See what you did"-quote from Okuda...I feel this should be reinserted due to the fact it has direct connections with the battle and it provides some much-needed levity. As far as the two latter points are concerned, it is BG info, more is good in this case...--Sennim (talk) 18:52, June 29, 2012 (UTC) :::All the removed info about the Borg cube is either entirely irrelevant to this article or written in such a way as to make it seem that way, apparently as much as possible; nowhere does it reference the battle, and all the info should instead be found on the Borg cube page, leading to a completely unnecessary duplication of info if copied here. Basically, the same goes for the "look what you did" quote, which can already be found on both the and pages. As for the images, your grounds for opposing my removal of 2 of them have now been made moot by you yourself, seeing as our image formatting doesn't allow for more than one instance of the same image used in any particular article. Since you've placed the images in the "Starships at Wolf 359" gallery, they shouldn't be additionally available (messily arranged) further up the page. I also have a problem with the "Uncertain starships at Wolf 359" listing; what differentiates those ships from the unnamed Nebula-class vessel at the bottom of the in-universe "Starships at Wolf 359" listing? Maybe an explanation of what is meant by "uncertain" could introduce the appropriate subsection(?) --Defiant (talk) 00:39, July 6, 2012 (UTC) :Dear Defiant, thank you for addressing my concerns. I will not contend your arguments, but please allow me to express that I somewhat differ in opinion about some of your basic assertions. I for one do not see anything wrong with duplication of info on different pages. As for the what you call "messily" placement of pictures (I gather you're meaning the left/right placement of those) I also assert that this is a matter of personal taste. In those cases were a left/right positioning is "called for" I actually find a placement like that appealing as it brings visual symmetry to a paragraph, and while you experience that, as you've stated on another occasion, as "text cluttering" I do not find so, if utilized with care. Please do not construe this as opening salvos for a fight, this absolutely not my intent, but rather as a gentile reminder that opinions and tastes, like people, do exist and can sometimes result in a stalemate as one does not have precedence over another. Anyways, back at the matter at hand, I agree with your skepticism about the use of the term "uncertain". While I have not come up with a better term, I've tried to write an explanatory intro for clarification...I wonder what your take is on Pseudohuman's removal of the "Nebula" wreck, which he's justified as "retconned out". He's right in that it was retconned out as being the Melbourne, but the thing is still (canonically) there, in both depictions...--Sennim (talk) 13:34, July 8, 2012 (UTC) :::I applaud your effort to write an explanatory introduction to the "uncertain starships" section. I also agree that it's just a difference of opinion about whether the left/right placement of images is messy; it's simply a stylization choice that I'm willing to let slide, as we are meant to encourage differences in style decisions. What's the source for the "retconning" you mentioned? If it's just the Star Trek Encyclopedia, I would think that should still be in the bginfo section. I also agree with what I assume is your position on this; that, regardless of whether it was an apocryphal source that retconned the Nebula-class as the Melbourne, the listing should remain as it was in the "uncertain starships" table, with more info about the retconning (briefly stated) in either the bginfo section (if it is just the Encyclopedia that's responsible) or the apocrypha section. Also, MA's makes it clear that "relevant information should not be referenced in every possible article, but only in the most relevant one." Hence, the info about the Borg cube, which makes no mention of this battle whatsoever, should probably be referenced only in the Borg cube article, etc. --Defiant (talk) 01:08, July 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::In the extremely long and messy USS Melbourne debate we agreed that there was no Nebula-class ship canonically at Wolf 359. It also is not an unnamed ship because it was canonically named. We agreed to go with the interpretation that the Nebula-class model was retconned out of canon from those episodes. we can certainly open this up for a rematch, but this discussion is not the right place for it. --Pseudohuman (talk) 03:25, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :Brrr, I remember seeing parts of that particular nasty discussion...Odd solution to disregard visual evidence and pretend the thing is not there at all...But considering the vehemence of the discussion, no thank you, do not feel the need to go there again...I wonder what your guy's position is now on the article, a lot of work by several parties has gone into this article. Is it up to specs now and ready to be voted upon?--Sennim (talk) 09:37, July 9, 2012 (UTC) ::::The list of canonical ships with the pics is a bit owerwhelmingly massive.. some of the pics contain more than one ship... if it were up to me, I would remove those pics. other than that, I like the article. --Pseudohuman (talk) 10:04, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :I understand why you see it that way, there was a reason why I did that. The original placement of the table, left with a large chunk of empty space next to it was visually awkward. Yet, if removal of the pics has consensus, I have no problem with that..--Sennim (talk) 10:42, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :::I wouldn't support any removal of pics from that table. I would instead suggest that we seek out another (more ship-specific) image for the (and possibly for the Bellerophon). --Defiant (talk) 11:08, July 9, 2012 (UTC) :Aside from cropping the available pics, I can't get pics of the mentioned ships in a solitary state. We might have to wait for the remasrterd edition--Sennim (talk) 15:13, July 27, 2012 (UTC) Call for votes This article is now on the verge of being denominated as a FA article, which personally, if that were to happen, I'd consider it an ignominious disgrace for MA as it held so much importance for so many Trek fans, hence the effort I've put into this one, as well as others, among others Defiant...I truly believe, it is now up to specs. So on this note: *'Support', once again --Sennim (talk) 15:13, July 27, 2012 (UTC) =Date?= Why does the article identify the battle as taking place in 2366? The Borg incursion started in 2366, but the battle does not begin until 2367. We have a solid stardate for the very beginning of the battle: between 44001.4 and 44002.3. Both these dates are very very early in 2367 (New Year's Day, even?), but still clearly 2367. Moreover, the Star Trek Encyclopedia has it taking place in 2367. Yet our article identifies the battle as taking place in 2366. Where's that date coming from? Is it just an error? I'm going to correct it now, because I can't see a rationale for it (nor discussion here) -- but, if there is some basis for the 2366 dating, please feel free to revert me and we can talk it out here. --BCSWowbagger (talk) 21:13, October 13, 2019 (UTC) (BCSWowbagger, not signed in)